Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

No, the December 11 date was always in the calendar. IIRC, Bongiorno is currently about 5 months pregnant, so it's likely that this issue will only potentially affect the timing of the appeal from February of next year onwards.

Ah, ok. Well then because of the holidays nothing will probably happen again until January? Even if it does go only 10 sessions it will probably drag into the spring.

 

[LondonJohn]

The blood stain found in the bidet is like a single drip of diluted blood that started near the rim and flowed down to the drain. If the bidet was used for cleanup, the flushing would have removed this drip. Therefore the drip into the bidet occurred after the bidet was last used and not during the cleaning. One possibility is a drip from the cuff of his pants as Rudy uses the bidet as a foot stool to put his shoe back on.

When using the shower to clean a pant leg that is still being worn, one would use a low pressure to avoid getting water and blood splashback everywhere. The basin and lower walls can later be cleaned up with a high pressure rinse. Amanda using this same shower in the morning would have also inadvertently washed away the residue.


BTW: Tilex is another substance that reacts with luminal.

What you say is entirely possible. A long time ago I mused on the idea of the shower having been used for a clean up - providing that the shower head was not permanently fixed to the wall. I would have thought that if one had blood on one's trouser leg that one wanted to remove whilst still wearing the trousers, a hand-held shower head would probably be the most effective thing to use. And of course the bath mat wasn't superglued to the floor in front of the sink, so it's entirely logical to suggest that it might have been moved to the shower entrance as well. Lastly, as you say, any hosing down of the shower cubicle, coupled with Knox's shower the following morning, would probably have been enough to get rid of any luminol-detectable blood on the shower cubicle walls or in the floor pan.

 

[Dan O.]

Also I thought blood could be identified in a drain. Did they check the shower thoroughly?

If we could get a complete list of the collected evidence we would know for sure. I know they checked the shower drain in Raffaele's place and they took the trap from his kitchen sink and the drain filter from his washer. I can't imagine why they would fail to check the shower drain in the cottage bath unless perhaps they were looking only for evidence to confirm a theory they already had and not looking for facts to lead them to the truth.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah, ok. Well then because of the holidays nothing will probably happen again until January? Even if it does go only 10 sessions it will probably drag into the spring.

Yes, it seems entirely possible, especially if new tests are ordered. Does anyone have any insight into what Sollecito's defence team plans to do if Bongiorno takes maternity leave midway through the appeal? Will Luca Maori take over as lead counsel, or will they ask for an adjournment until Bongiorno returns to work?

 

[katy_did]

Hasn't a big part of Amanda's defense been the lack of her DNA in Meredith's bedroom? Yet now, they want to present evidence that someone (the gangster's brother) could have murdered Meredith and left ZERO DNA or any other evidence!

If the gangster's brother could have murdered Meredith without leaving DNA then so could Amanda. What is the defense thinking?

Well, this is the whole point of asking for the stains on the pillow to be tested, since they argue there's a possibility they belong to this second person. In which case, he would have left some pretty definitive DNA evidence.

I wonder though if this is just an additional argument to get the Court to agree to the testing. If the theory is they belong to Rudy, the Court could just say it's pointless testing them anyway, since it wouldn't absolve Amanda and Raffaele. Whereas if the defence argue they might belong to a second person, that would change the whole theory of the crime, and so it would be important to test them.

From the defence's point of view, if the stains were tested and found to be Rudy's I think it would help their case, even if in theory it wouldn't absolve them. It would mean very strong additional evidence against Rudy in the bedroom, and would highlight the weak to non-existent evidence there against the other two.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ

My response was to platonov's sarcastic suggestions.

I know - apologies!

 

[Fine]

The guilters like to say that this footprint made in diluted blood came from someone (they say Raffaele) walking barefoot from the murder room into the bathroom. But they never complete the scenario by explaining why there are no bloody bare footprints in the murder room or in the hall leading towards the bath.

____________________

The lovebirds needn't have stepped in blood in Meredith's bedroom. If the murder was committed in their undies, they could have got blood on their bodies. Then, while cleaning themselves in the bathroom, they ended up with diluted blood on their feet.

Or maybe Rudy left blood on the floor of the bathroom that the lovebirds then stepped in.

///

 

[LondonJohn]

____________________

The lovebirds needn't have stepped in blood in Meredith's bedroom. If the murder was committed in their undies, they could have got blood on their bodies. Then, while cleaning themselves in the bathroom, they ended up with diluted blood on their feet.

Or maybe Rudy left blood on the floor of the bathroom that the lovebirds then stepped in.

///

Maybe they were also suspended by wires from the ceiling in Meredith's room and on the way to the bathroom, since they managed to leave no footprint or shoeprint traces in either place. Maybe they had watched "Mission Impossible" on Sollecito's laptop.....

///
.
qwerty
.
.
888
.
.
Arsenal2Spurs3
.
.
..
//
&
.

 

[Withnail1969]

____________________

The lovebirds needn't have stepped in blood in Meredith's bedroom. If the murder was committed in their undies, they could have got blood on their bodies. Then, while cleaning themselves in the bathroom, they ended up with diluted blood on their feet.

Or maybe Rudy left blood on the floor of the bathroom that the lovebirds then stepped in.

///

i can't get my head round a scenario where Rudy is clothed, Meredith is mostly clothed before her death, and Amanda and Raff are naked or in their underwear.

 

[LondonJohn]

i can't get my head round a scenario where Rudy is clothed, Meredith is mostly clothed before her death, and Amanda and Raff are naked or in their underwear.

Well, nor can any clear-thinking, objective observer either (in my opinion). Trouble for the prosecution is, they've never been able to link to any clothing or footwear worn by Knox or Sollecito during the murder then subsequently cleaned or disposed of. And they know it. So - as with the knife situation - their answer is to suspend disbelief to make the narrative fit the evidence (or lack of evidence in the case of clothing). Hence the near- or full-nakedness of Knox and Sollecito.

Now where was that sweater of Knox's that the police/prosecutors were convinced she was wearing on the night of the murder and had subsequently disposed of, again....?

 

[TomM43]

Still no response to the call for a coherent prosecution narrative? ***I don't care if last week you argued until you were blue in the face that Curatolo was not perjuring himself,***.

What makes you think that there has to be single, complete theory that explains the crime in order to convict?

Do you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that when Curatolo swore to tell the truth, he was in fact intending to tell a lie?

 

[pilot padron]

Well, nor can any clear-thinking, objective observer either (in my opinion). Trouble for the prosecution is, they've never been able to link to any clothing or footwear worn by Knox or Sollecito during the murder then subsequently cleaned or disposed of. And they know it.

Errr..."trouble for the prosecution" ????

The prosecution did win a unanimous guilty verdict, you know.
This despite these 'troubles' you now refer us to that the top of the line Defense Attorneys were well aware of during trial ??.

 

[LondonJohn]

What makes you think that there has to be single, complete theory that explains the crime in order to convict?

Do you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that when Curatolo swore to tell the truth, he was in fact intending to tell a lie?

I can't speak for Kevin, but I personally don't have a clear view on whether Curatolo was honestly mistaken or dissembling. I do, however, believe that his testimony was almost certainly incorrect, for one reason or another.

While of course you're correct to say that there doesn't have to be a nailed-down theory to explain the crime, there are potential discrepancies at play here which materially affect the situation quite significantly. At what time, for example, do you believe Meredith died? I personally don't believe that an 11.30+ ToD is tenable any longer. And if it's not 11.30pm+, then it has to be before 10.30pm (because of the broken-down car witnesses). And that nullifies both Curatolo and Capezzali as witnesses. And in fact if you agree with the autopsy pathologist and all the available medical literature (as I do) that Meredith most likely died before 9.30pm (and almost certainly before 10pm), then Sollecito's computer activity comes sharply into perspective.

So, to kick off, at what time on the 1st November do you think Meredith died?

 

[LondonJohn]

Errr..."trouble for the prosecution" ????

The prosecution did win a unanimous guilty verdict, you know.
This despite these 'troubles' you now refer us to that the top of the line Defense Attorneys were well aware of during trial ??.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

And I've said many, many times (and have been consistent in my view) that I believe that there were failings in both Knox's and Sollecito's defence in the first trial - for many reasons. And, coupled with that, I believe that the court in the first trial made an erroneous judgment in law - a point which is amply argued in the defence's appeal submissions.

By the way, at what time on 1st November 2007 do you think Meredith died?

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, this is the whole point of asking for the stains on the pillow to be tested, since they argue there's a possibility they belong to this second person. In which case, he would have left some pretty definitive DNA evidence.

I wonder though if this is just an additional argument to get the Court to agree to the testing. If the theory is they belong to Rudy, the Court could just say it's pointless testing them anyway, since it wouldn't absolve Amanda and Raffaele. Whereas if the defence argue they might belong to a second person, that would change the whole theory of the crime, and so it would be important to test them.

From the defence's point of view, if the stains were tested and found to be Rudy's I think it would help their case, even if in theory it wouldn't absolve them. It would mean very strong additional evidence against Rudy in the bedroom, and would highlight the weak to non-existent evidence there against the other two.

Sounds very risky. If the stain was found to belong to the gangster's brother or another unknown male, how does this help the defense? Where's the proof that the stain has anything to do with the murder? If the person who left that stain also murdered Meredith where's the evidence anywhere in the apartment? If this guy could pull off a bloody murder without leaving any trace of himself so could Amanda.

 

[Fine]

A Flatmate Dispute

i can't get my head round a scenario where Rudy is clothed, Meredith is mostly clothed before her death, and Amanda and Raff are naked or in their underwear.

Withnail,

Well, you don't like Massei's reconstruction in which the precipitating event was Rudy entering Meredith's bedroom---with intent to molest--- while the lovebirds were in Amanda's bed. Consider this variation...............

The lovebirds had gone to bed. Period. Rudy was spending the night, on the sofa. Meredith comes out of her room. surprised to find Rudy. She screams. The lovebirds come out of Amanda's room, in their undies. An argument ensues over whether Amanda is permitted to have two "strange men" spend the night. The argument escalates. Meredith gets killed. This scenario requires that the three suspects snuck into the cottage and that Meredith's door had been closed............but, hey, didn't Amanda herself say that Meredith often closed her door???

///

 

[LondonJohn]

Withnail,

Well, you don't like Massei's reconstruction in which the precipitating event was Rudy entering Meredith's bedroom---with intent to molest--- while the lovebirds were in Amanda's bed. Consider this variation...............

The lovebirds had gone to bed. Period. Rudy was spending the night, on the sofa. Meredith comes out of her room. surprised to find Rudy. She screams. The lovebirds come out of Amanda's room. An argument ensues over whether Amanda is permitted to have two "strange men" spend the night. The argument escalates. Meredith gets killed. This scenario requires that the three suspects snuck into the cottage and that Meredith's door had been closed............but, hey, didn't Amanda herself say that Meredith often closed her door???

///

When did Knox, Sollecito and Guede enter the girls' house in this scenario? And at what time was Meredith killed in this scenario?

///
.
.
...
.
... _ _ _ ...
NASUWT
.
..

 

[Withnail1969]

Withnail,

Well, you don't like Massei's reconstruction in which the precipitating event was Rudy entering Meredith's bedroom---with intent to molest--- while the lovebirds were in Amanda's bed. Consider this variation...............

The lovebirds had gone to bed. Period. Rudy was spending the night, on the sofa. Meredith comes out of her room. surprised to find Rudy. She screams. The lovebirds come out of Amanda's room, in their undies. An argument ensues over whether Amanda is permitted to have two "strange men" spend the night. The argument escalates. Meredith gets killed. This scenario requires that the three suspects snuck into the cottage and that Meredith's door had been closed............but, hey, didn't Amanda herself say that Meredith often closed her door???

///

I've shared a lot of houses with a lot of people in my time, and some of those people proved to be pretty disruptive/unstable.

But i can't feature a scenario where a guest sleeping on a sofa sparks off a murderous fight. Rudy had his own flat a short distance from the cottage, why would he need to stay on Amanda's sofa?

 

[Kaosium]

Hasn't a big part of Amanda's defense been the lack of her DNA in Meredith's bedroom? Yet now, they want to present evidence that someone (the gangster's brother) could have murdered Meredith and left ZERO DNA or any other evidence!

If the gangster's brother could have murdered Meredith without leaving DNA then so could Amanda. What is the defense thinking?

I don't think that's the reason. I believe the purpose is to show that the Court did not pursue possible leads. This guy wrote the judges about three times claiming he had this proof of his brother's involvement and could show them. They ignored him. There might be technical legal reasons this is more important than it looks to both of us at first glance, as it appears to me to be something of a waste of time for the reasons you stated.

I suppose it's also possible that the brother wasn't actually involved in the murder, but met up with Rudy afterward, perhaps even was the guy in the mystery car and that's how he ended up with those keys. It could be he could testify that neither Amanda nor Raffaele was involved.

 

[Fine]

I've shared a lot of houses with a lot of people in my time, and some of those people proved to be pretty disruptive/unstable.

But i can't feature a scenario where a guest sleeping on a sofa sparks off a murderous fight. Rudy had his own flat a short distance from the cottage, why would he need to stay on Amanda's sofa?

Whether Rudy needed to or not... do you suppose he might have had some interest in spending the night in the cottage with two pretty girls???

///